Nevada Schools Rank #1 In Deception Index
November 7th, 2007Emily Richmond, the veteran education reporter at the Las Vegas Sun, was probably handed a difficult assignment by her editors yesterday morning: kill Beers.
On Monday, my campaign sent out a press release detailing how I had looked at new data (for the 04/05 school year) available from the US Dept. of Education’s “National Center For Education Statistics” and determined that in “Total Expenditures” Nevada schools ranked 37th in spending per student. I published my work, links to NCES’ raw data and a downloadable spreadsheet that same morning.
I haven’t been able to find any coverage in the mainstream media on that day, or the next.
Then, on Tuesday morning, I appeared live on KNPR’s “State of Nevada” radio program with University Chancellor Jim Rogers (amongst others). You can listen to the program here.
Rogers opened up by saying Nevada funds education 49th lowest of all states, and that unless we raise taxes fast and high, we won’t improve the results of our education system.
I corrected him that the National Center for Education Statistics says our funding is actually 37th, and asked for his source on his ranking of 49th. Rather than cite a source, he deflected by asking if I thought 37th was good enough. That wasn’t my point, I said - I was just trying to make the debate intellectually honest.
Rogers seemed angry, and four hours later, I got a call from Las Vegas Sun education reporter Emily Richmond, who told me she had spoken to a NCES statistician who said it was wrong of me to include expenses classified as “non-current” with those classified as “current” in calculating education spending. I asked Emily to call the statistician back and ask if NCES was the group that classified spending into these two categories, or if each school district did it themselves.
It turns out each school district does it themselves, and that the Clark County School District (which spends about 70% of Nevada’s education money) does it incorrectly, as Emily reported in her story today. CCSD does this by classifying maintenance (and probably some other expenses) as “non-current” where other states follow NCES guidelines and classify such spending as “current.”
In Emily’s story, the Clark County School District tried to minimize the impact of their chronic misclassification of expenses. However, the fact remains that Nevada ranks 46th (not 49th) in “current” spending and 13th in “non-current” spending. I call the difference between these rankings “The Deception Index.”
Nevada’s Deception Index of 33 ranking positions is the largest of any state. We rank first in this measure.
Since we now have CCSD admitting that they violate NCES guidelines in their expense classification, it follows that we cannot use Nevada’s ranking on one classification or the other to fairly compare Nevada with other states. The only thing we know for sure is that when you add each state’s “current” and “non-current” spending together, we rank 37th.
CCSD’s next line of defense will be that our high rate of population growth is why our “non-current” expense ranking is so high. However, last year, Arizona replaced Nevada as the fastest growing state. It seems to me that Arizona should have a Deception Index higher than Nevada’s 33 ranking positions.
Arizona does not. It’s Deception Index is only 13 ranking positions, less than half of Nevada’s.
It turns out that CCSD deception is nothing new to Nevada’s education debate.
It is also important to note that 30% of Nevada’s education effort exists outside the Clark County School District. Readers should always keep in mind the unfair nature of CCSD being able to dominate statewide numbers by virtue of sheer size. There are likely a number of small school districts in Nevada trying hard and engaging in honest debate. They just aren’t in Clark County.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Excellent job representing rationality on that radio program Senator Beers. BTW, who appoints the University Chancellor and who has the ability and will to replace him?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Congratulations Senator Beers… Rogers doesn’t have a clue as to what you are talking about. Why is his first instinct to raise taxes? Why should we not vote to cut his salary?
Rogers comment on “improving the results on our educational system” … what results is he talking about? Does he even know? Results proving what exactly? How much $$$ the gaming industry pours into education every year that the students and teachers never see?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Chancellor Rogers donates his salary back to the education system.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Rogers’ views on funding education (and any other public service for that matter) are older than his car collection.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I admire Rogers for his success, however he doesn’t live in the same world as 99% of the population. When you have tens of millions to give away (hundreds of millions?), it is much easier to take his position.
For a family losing their house over the additional tax burden, they can’t treat new taxes for the school district to waste so flippantly.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
It is amazing to me just how adept the Educrats like Rogers are a obviscating issues like Education. All you have to do is take a CLOSE look at the DETAILED budgets for UNR or UNLV especially the salaries of all the Professors and all their supporting cast of characters and you know why the system is totally out to lunch. Many of the tenured professors in the Nevada University System are making huge salaries much higher than comparable tenured professors in land grant universities in the Midwest!
As to the K-12 argument.
Would you actually believe the BOZOS that have totally screwed up the education system in Nevada for the Last 15 years expect that they have earned our trust and respect to give them more tax-dollars to perpetuate the same bankrupt system. All they really ever want $$$$ for is put “a new paint job and stereo system in their SAME OLD EDUCATIONAL CAR with the same tired, educational baby food that has been spoon fed to our poor Nevada students!
November 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I was laughing my posterior off while listening to this broadcast, It just needed Dina Titus lamenting that “He’s trapping me with numbers” to make things complete.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Has anyone seen Rogers “Rose Color Glasses”?
Raise taxes and never talk about cutting spending! Typical Liberals way of thinking.
CCSD is crying that they don’t have enough qualified teachers. I know of 3 high school teachers that have come from other cities and applied for teaching jobs with CCSD. They were told that they are over qualified.
I think that the CCSD is trying to dumb down our students.
The communistic way of thinking is very present in our schools of higher education.
In 1963 the Russians told President Kennedy that, “We will destroy you from with in.” They have succeeded.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:30 am
That all depends on how much additional tax burden you’re talking about? It’s unlikely that an additional twenty to thirty dollars a month (tax deductable) would significantly reduce a homeowner’s margin of safety.
November 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
It is appalling to see the blatent lies told by the education
establishment and Jim Rogers. If he and his buddies want to
donate money to the state or schools they are free to do so.
Why are their contributions dependent on matching tax dollars?
Sound like some kind of scam to me!! I am NOT interested in
funding colleges of any kind, let the private sector do it!
November 10th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Jim Rogers reminds me of a seven year old having a temper tantrum. He has no clue of the real world around him. He needs to be replaced. (Maybe the next time he resigns, the Nevada education system should accept and not let him change his mind.)
November 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Well done Bob! The “current”, “non-current” accounting scam begs the question; are capital, maintenance, and bond expenses of no benefit to students for education or are they free? Granted that school buildings and their condition are essential for a good education and are not built with monopoly money, all these costs to taxpayers need to be included in per pupil spending.
Deception, obfuscation, and inability to cite sources are the hallmark of the “more money” for education crowd who avoid accountability and systemic reforms at all costs. Above and beyond Rogers blindly chorusing stats he can’t substantiate and Titus throwing in her expensive and ineffective all-day kindergarten diversion during the radio show, Emily Richmond quotes in her article the author of the thoroughly discredited education adequacy study for Nevada, John Augenblick.
“People in my business consider those different animals and don’t like to mix them up,” said John Augenblick, a consultant who conducted the Nevada Legislature’s school funding adequacy study in 2006. A fast-growing district might spend millions of dollars in a single year on new construction, while a neighboring community has no need to build. That’s why per pupil expenditures are supposed to reflect what happens inside the classroom, and not what it cost to build the classroom, Augenblick said.
People in Augenblick’s business get paid to generate studies that exaggerate needs and hide expenses for one purpose, to justify raising taxes and expand the empire. With that in mind, it makes sense as to why he says, “people in my business …. don’t like to mix them up” and “not what it cost to build the classroom.”
Then along comes Bob, a guy who sends shockwaves into the entire system by clearly pointing out the results oriented manipulations purposefully intended to mislead the taxpaying public. Listeners to this radio show heard a short version of the entire 2007 Legislative Session, a battle between obfuscation and clarification.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
[…] Nevada Schools Rank #1 In Deception Index […]
November 16th, 2007 at 4:15 am
[…] #1 Deception Index Ranking […]
November 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Can we really rely on national figures—particularly the ones being cited—as benchmarks for funding Our Education System? Perhaps those numbers are meaningless? Those figures show us how much we fund Our schools compared with other states, but it does not tell us if those are the right funding levels to be using. We should be funding Our Education System based on what we need here in Nevada and not compare bad with worse.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
The national funding central tendency is not aligned where it should be. Even the best funded schools in the US are still underfunded. That assertion is support by your research with your SAT scores.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I wish it were that easy. A correlation between funding and performance would provide a clearly lit path to improvement. Sadly, there appears to be no such correlation. Not sure what you’re seeing there, Jeffery.
November 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I meant to present my post as a question. Perhaps the national funding distribution is not where it should be? Regarding the SAT scores, a relationship might exist, but too many variables go into education to know the exact relationship between SAT scores and funding. There is an uncertainty principle.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:42 am
[…] #1 Deception Index Ranking […]